Abstract
Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty (RAP) offers yet another approach to the surgical management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. As with laparoscopic procedures, RAP is minimally invasive yet differs from laparoscopy in that sophisticated computerized systems are involved which enhance dexterity and facilitate intracorporeal suturing. This will, with time and with dissemination of robotic technology, undoubtedly allow more surgeons and centers to adopt RAP as a new standard of care. The RAP follows the same principles as those of standard open dismembered Anderson-Hynes procedure. The kidney and renal pelvis are approached by either a trans- or retroperitoneal route. Surgical outcome and complication rates for RAP are comparable with those of open surgery.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Berguer R, Smith W (2006) An ergonomic comparison of robotic and laparoscopic technique: the influence of surgeon experience and task complexity. J Surg Res 134:87−92
Casale P et al. (2004) Comparison of dismembered and nondismembered laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric patient. J Endourol 18:875−878
Chammas M Jr. et al. (2006) Laparoscopic robotic-assisted management of pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction in patients with horseshoe kidneys: technique and 1-year follow-up. BJU Int 97:579−583
Eskild-Jensen A et al. (2004) Interpretation of the renogram: problems and pitfalls in hydronephrosis in children. BJU Int 94:887−892
Klingler HC et al. (2003) Comparison of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction. Eur Urol 44:340−345
Lee RS et al. (2006) Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: comparison with a cohort of open surgery. J Urol 175:683−687
Mendez-Torres F et al. (2005) Technical modifications for robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol 19:393−396
Moon DA et al. (2006) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: evolution of a new gold standard. Urology 67:932−936
O’Reilly PH et al. (2001) The long-term results of Anderson−Hynes pyeloplasty. BJU Int 87:287−289
Olsen LH et al. (2007) Robotically assisted retroperitoneal pyeloplasty in children: 5-years experience J Urol 178:2137−2141
Palese MA et al. (2005) Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: a combined experience. J Endourol 19:382−386
Patel V (2005) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urology 66:45−49
Peters CA et al. (1995) Pediatric laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 153:1962−1965
Schuessler WW et al. (1993) Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 150:1795−1799
Sundaram CP et al. (2003) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 169:2037−2040
Weise ES, Winfield HN (2006) Robotic computer-assisted pyeloplasty versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol 20:813−819
Olsen LH (2006) Robotics in paediatric urology. J Pediatr Urol 2:40−45)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Olsen, L., Rahwashdeh, Y. (2008). Robotic Pyeloplasty. In: John, H., Wiklund, P. (eds) Robotic Urology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74140-4_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74140-4_14
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-74139-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-74140-4
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)